Template talk:Infobox chapters
I do not like the changes since my last version of 17 Nov 2005, particularly the lack of relative width (I believe I had it set to 20% with a max of about 200 pixels) --Gherald 01:26, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) : I believe in web design (IMHO), it's a bad idea to have layout inconsistencies between pages. It makes you feel a little frustrated as you look through a site, even if it's on a subconscious level. Consistency makes the user feel comfortable browsing. Also, I believe the code now is a bit more readable and manageable, and uses more style tags which isn't a bad idea. But of course, it's not my site, so revert as you wish :) - Sinnic 03:12, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) :: I have tested this template at many different resolutions ranging from 1024x to 2048x, and the relative width scaled better. It seemed consistent to me and I have no idea what could be frustrating about it. The reason we started using relative in the first place is that Naeblis complained fixed was wasting space at 800x and even 1024x...whilst I wanted something that didn't look too skinny at my usual 1600x. I got this idea from the sidebars at meta, for example m:help:table. :: I don't particularly care for the code being more readable. That is often subjective and your rewriting has made it difficult to figure out what actual changes you have made and why. In the future I would recommend doing these things in seperate steps: first either make code more readable or make functional changes, let it sit for awhile so others can understand what you are doing and why... and then do the other thing. :: hiddenStructure, in particular, does not work with some of the browsers I test with, which is why I avoid it in favor of server-side if templates. --Gherald 18:28, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) :: Point of order: When it comes to editing, it's everybody's site; edits should be judged on their merit and not some sort of heirarchy. That being said, I liked Gherald's kludge of using non-breaking spaces to format the chapter infoboxes, since they shouldn't really ever need to be edited once we get them finalized. I'm less concerned about code readability than final product either; Sinnic, are you trying to make them all more consistent across books? nae'blis (talk) 19:37, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::: Cool, you've won me over. Revert.- Sinnic 21:15, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) Book links Gherald, would it be feasible to add forward/backward links to the next/prior book in this infobox, or is that overpurposing it a bit too much? I'm open to another suggestion, I just think it would help navigation, without having to have the full infobox on every single bloody chapter summary... -- nae'blis 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) :That's not a bad idea. More important though is a link back to the main book page (forward/backward book links could be to either side of it). might be a better place, I'm not sure yet. But I do plan to rewrite this template sometime in the mid-term future to get rid of the ugly html table nested in wiki, so that's when I'll worry about it. You can do so earlier if you're so inclined. --Gherald 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)